what you are doing. you have made a conscious choice in that. let me walk for a couple of things to get the reality. about an hour ago, i went on my ipad and got healthcare.gov, and i hit this button that says create an account. it doesn't go anywhere. it just changes colors and does nothing. a half, ian hour and have occasionally hit that button. this is the frustration and a lot of the folks have. we get that. we have questions as we walk through this process of what happens. you said is our goal. can you be more specific? are we going to hit november 30? >> thank you for the kind words at the beginning.

the goal that has been laid out butor -- not to be perfect, -- >> functional. >> so the vast majority of americans can use this smoothly. >> here is the issue. around 5 million people have received cancellation letters. i have constituents who have received copies of their letters that end with the insurance policy concludes with december the 31st. if they cannot get into this site by december 15, they will not have access to insurance january 1. they will be uninsured. the deadline is out the for march 31. those who have received by the millions cannot get insurance and will be uninsured. i get that is the goal. the reality is rating -- racing at us. we are trying to fix a plan that

is in the air. i understand the complexities of that. the challenge is that many of us that park the plane for a year, let's get it right. your fault. you are dealing with the realities on the ground. that is something we are trying to communicate on this. the september 27, the .uthorization to operate some committee staff that you during the conversation, there was a back- and-forth on this ato coming out that mr. james kerr and yourself edited there. sissy --emo, due to a two to a system of readiness issue, this constitutes a risk that must be mitigated to support the marketplace day one operations.

you were asked by staff what are those risks that are out there that are becoming the unknowns that have to be mitigated. you had listed things like unauthorized access, data, personalize identifier information. am i tracking this correctly? >> yes. those are examples i was asked to provide. >> the problem is, you're trying to mitigate on things you do not know. i understand on risk. you mitigate on things that you know. is that correct? one, signingon day a document that says there are risks that are out there. some that were listed, it's mitigate on those. were we mitigating for every possibility? >> what you do, look at the probability of a particular risk occurring. he prioritize, and one of the mitigation steps was to conduct weekly security testing, and

report back to the ministry here on the results of that security testing. >> during that if you find that some data was misrouted? gettingrance companies information that is incorrect? >> there are cases in which insurance of an israeli data that were not incorrectly routed to them, but incorrectly formatted within the transaction. >> do you know who reads marilyn tavener on the wrist? she had to sign off on this document question mark >> -- she had to sign up on the document. is there way to be able to track what information employees can see while they are working on this? we have a lot of contractors working on this. is there way to track? gathers personally identifiable

--ormation grade information. logs.re are system if you call the call center and the representative -- >> i'm talking about the back in. >> the gentleman's time is expired. you can finish the question. >> and in certain cases, yes. it is not live people data. i think the gentleman from oklahoma's breed for the record, i want to point out that those items that you identified as particular inherent risks were dignified by you prior to the september 3 memo that was introduced. i know the gentleman from virginia had indicated that it was after that memo.

for the record, you indicated those prior to that they introduced by committee. >> i do not understand what you are trying to say. it was in the context of the memo. >> you mentioned these risks he cause of the failure to do integrated security testing. >> and not believe i said failure. resolved.not >> i do not have the transit -- the transcript in front of me. i cannot confirm with you. i was not given an opportunity to make corrections if there were corrections to be made. all can say is that to the best my knowledge, do not recall saying that. i need to see my transcripts. isthe gentleman from vermont recognized. >> thank you. first, i want to join mr.

langford and thanking each of you. for the incredible effort that you are putting into trying to fix a very serious problem. thank you. second, you do not have to be an opponent or supporter of the health care law to acknowledge that there are significant rollout problems associated with the website. ,hose of us who are supporters i'm a strong supporter of the health care law, are absolutely committed to provided the supported the you need to make this work. there are four issues that are around. the website, and what we have to do to fix it. it has to be fixed. number two, what are the impacts of these cancellation notices that americans are receiving. they thought they had health care were sure that they keep the policy they had. third, the individual mandate

that is the subtext of the debate. that is essential to the law. in order to make that work, the website has to work. the fourth is the i.t. purchasing. are there some lessons that we can learn? i tend to think that it is a truly important move ahead on the legislation. that is the context that we are in. you're here to bus fix the problem. we have to get that done. i want to start by asking you mr. park him if you can make comments about your specific things we can do to get this fixed. i understand all of us would like to have a hard date wherever they will be perfect. what we are dealing with is the real world. we want it to be functional for the vast majority of americans. what are the abc state you need -- what areon mark the abcs that you need to do?

>> the team is taking all the right steps. is a of all, the team limited monitoring across the site. system, and where to focus. isondly, the team undertaking an aggressive programming improvement to actually improve visibility and performance of the site. capacity expansion, etc., which has resulted in system response times going eight seconds to less than a second. thirdly, the team is a working on functionality bugs. i had pretty issue is use interface and user experience. that is being pursued aggressively. finally, there is a bunch of work underway to keep improving

the release process. you can actually fix the issues faster and faster at a growing clip. i to manage this effort. moving at increasing speeds. >> how are we going to address the problem esther langford had getting on the website? there has been a lot of problem on that front. -- there has been a lot of progress on that front. the system can handle more volume. also, through bug fixes that have been applied. he would be so kind, i would love to talk with you afterwards to understand your specific situation and use that to inform the troubleshooting. >> i would like it if you did.

it is straightforward. i got to that page. it did nothing. it is nothing more than that as far as moving it to create an account. >> i will talk to afterwards. >> g have concrete suggestions about what we can do as a congress to make it more efficient? >> i have a couple of specific suggestions. and i will go back to my oral statement. management needs to be in place. the i.t. dashboards, this is one of them. given the late start to compressed schedules and complexity, does anyone think it was a green project? i do not think so. it should not have been green. there should've been flags on the dashboard and better transparency. the other thing is proactive governance. , andok at the reform plan

proactive governments is important. governance upfront on important programs. not when things go in the tank. we needed up front. it is the same thing. we get engage with the contractor. engage with the right executives upfront instead of one we have problems. i know there are a lot of projects and priorities. we need to find a way to tackle that better. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i think the gentleman from vermont. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i think the chairman. i want to join in on this sentiment that i appreciate that you are generally trying to work on this. we all are. i happen to chair the cyber subcommittee on homeland in addition to that have concerns and frustrations. i think i reflect people out there that with the concept of

frustration, in many ways when i talk to my folks at home, this isn't about a website. it is about trust. the inherent trust they have in the relationship they have with their doctor being impacted. the trust they have in the ability for this system not only to operate but to operate securely. i know this is outside. i was stunned when i heard the question today when the secretary said yes, we can have balance that are operating -- felons operating as navigators. what is going to be done from this point forward to a sure that no felon will be used as a navigator anywhere in the notice is? in the context of this system, that is a health policy. it is not a tech decision. >> we participate in getting something done?

>> i think cms is performing background investigations on. -- hat is not the >> please look into that. had testified about the readiness in july and august of this, ready to go. ofust look at the background .he ig report to congress you were talking about compliance with this. when you look at hhs, the ig's came out. the second worst code across government, hhs. afisma.liance with we are ready dealing again with a question of trust.

let me just get to the heart of our engagement. i was so frustrated, i couldn't understand how in the ig report, it could've suggested they were great concerns about the ability to be ready in time to conduct the testing, and you assured me that time that they were on schedule, and you're going to meet all the requirements for the testing. tavener.. told before the marketplace was allowed to operate, they had to do comply with all of the rigorous standards, yet at the same time you were testifying before me, i have a story that was saying staffers were aware by late 2012 the work of building the federal exchange was lagging. that so manyned me

things are behind schedule there will be no time for adequate in the end testing how the parts moved together. how was it done? in the short time frame, where the on employees are saying it could not be done, ig says there were concerns about the ability to do testing, somehow the day before the committee had you before us, there was report from the secretary that said all of our marketplace systems are allowed to operate and begin serving consumers. i am please report the hub completed assessments on august 23. >> the hub was tested first. it was completed in august, as you mentioned. i think the remainder of august and into september we concluded the third round of testing for the marketplace systems, to live -- particularly for the system

data before october 1. came outs the document from cgi. at the time you were saying to me that the testing -- that this completecertified as by the certifying agency, and tavener was your testifying that it was done, you have the same time an internal memo from cgi onlyg the ffm schedule was 31% completed on the same day you are telling me that a certification has been finished. how can you certify when they haven't even built more than half of the system? >> i do not know what document you're holding. august, ifg that in you want percent is about where we were at. remember, what --we have other key functions. >> how do you give

certification? >> to test the components, parts of the system the go into production and that are actually interacting with the public. >> the gentleman's time has expired. recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. have other things you want to add? >> i think i got my last word in. >> earlier this morning, at the beginning of the hearing, chairman eyes asked about the anonymous shopper function. you said you had decided to direct cgi to disable because of defects. >> yes. >> with the gentleman yield question mark >> no. phrase, you were handed a document. it shows that there were no

defects in the system. has blown up a box over the other statements made on the right-hand side of the box that 9:22.ays i have given you a sheet there that is clean from those boxes without the original blowups on their. do you have that? >> i think so. >> that is the original document. we refer me the last statement there starting with the defects identified? criticaltreated as target fixes for 9-12. >> that is what you testified for? you had found defects. yes.

>> you decided to focus on compare. >> yes. the opportunity to choose the more critical function, plan compare is much more critical in the path of the consumer being able to enroll in health care as compared to the ability to browse. >> you thought i was the best priority. >> at that time, yes. given the cgi resources that were available. there was a subsequent date. i would have to locate the documentation. we did do another round of testing and it was still failing. >> a copy test was successful and you have this ongoing believe that it tested unsuccessfully due to defects. >> correct. the report i look at is from the

aca independent testers. not from cgi. the shopperhy function was disabled. >> correct. from the independent testers. >> so when chairman issa stated -- white house ordered you >> i object. notgentleman may mischaracterize my statements. objectgentleman will not in the middle of some one else's questioning. i will continue my questions. >> point of privilege. disparagingeman is mischaracterizing what i have said. could the chair please direct all members if they want to allege a quote, ensure that it is a quote and not a characterization that is an accurate as the gentleman said is? >> the chair with a mind each and every member here to direct

their comments without personality, and direct those comments to make sure that they reflected as to not make a personal attack. >> well said. i assume you are directing that it someone else. i will read a quote on october 27. here it is. contractors have already told us that people representing that the white house was telling them they needed these changes, including a simple shopper they were forced to register and go through all the things they have slowed down before they could find out about a price. cgi, theyct with denied ever saying such a thing. nevertheless he went on to claim on the white house, buried information about the high cost of obamacare to avoid consumer sticker shock. that is not why you made the

decision to disable the program question mark >> just as a answered before, absolutely not. back.ield >> allowed to address this to chairman issa. when speaking to mr. conway, you referred to a letter sent to you on november 6. it is my letter he sent. he did not read that letter. that was about minor security testing documents provided to the committee. like any website security documents, they are sensitive and released, a good hacker sense on how to break into the system. i ask you to treat those documents with sensitivity and consult with novell making them -- and consult with me before making the public. every security document for every i.t. system, no matter how secure the system is, a sensitive. every security testing document meaning and the-

vigils hoping to cause mr.. givesting documents could -- meeting >> i know you made comments with regard to your sworn testimony and what you recall or don't. i would make it available to you for your reference at the desk if you would like to have that in case there are other questions asked regarding that. >> thank you. i probably would need time to go over it. >> you would need time to review what you said on the record question mark >> it was nine hours of interview questions. >> if you like to come back and review this, we will he be glad to make it available to you. thank you mr. chairman. welcome. the hearing is getting long and there has been a lot of

questions. there is no doubt that the american people want answers about this huge investment in a website that is not his plan. it has been educational experience. park, looking back and knowing that what you know now, give a letter grade to the rollout of obamacare. that is an interesting question. in terms of the role of the been rocky.has hesitate. >> i think people appreciate honesty. you know how to fill a but what do you think it was? >> it depends on the user. there were some able to get through. a lot couldn't. >> you not 20 given a grade. >> i think it overly simplifies

it. answers.of people want this a complex issue. forcible for casing, that would like to know people who are responsible for rolling this out don't think that it went well. it doesn't really sound might a lot of you think it was that abysmal of a failure. this hearing started out with the making member starting out with how this is a republican issue out to destroy the health care law. -- a lot of money was invested in this. people want answers. it is complex. in a simple fashion, people would like to hear we screwed up. , would you give it a letter grade? >> that is highly subjective. >> fair enough.

>> perhaps we could have as a pass fail? lessat would be complicated. >> again, i don't want to reduce that boil down. to be clear, all of us are frustrated about how the site rolled out. think it went well. we are incredibly focused on getting it better. >> knowing what we know now, you would testify that you are giving your marching orders, but i do not think the october 1 date was immovable. would you agree with that? >> i do not have the luxury of determining what was movable or not movable. >> knowing what you know now, would you have pushed to have

the date move back? >> that is pure speculation. >> knowing what you know now. >> i was not in a position to choose a day. >> knowing what you know now, would you have pushed harder to move the date back? >> i go by what i said. >> she would let history repeat itself. >> that is not what i said. >> would you have asked to have this delayed or pushed back? have a detailed knowledge base of what actually happened pre-october 1. i don't know what was available. i hesitate to make any -- >> we spent over half $1 billion of taxpayer money, and no one is going to say that we should have done things differently. the president doesn't know.

we were trying to save the american people from the bad law. we were trying to save the president from himself. he needs to sit down and talk with us about delaying this. no one on this panel, after seeing what a failure this has been is going to step up and say yes, we should have delayed this. does anyone want to speak to that? >> perhaps the gao could comment on whether this was a site that should have been launched on october 1 and serviced six people. >> clearly knowing what we know now, a delaying rollout would have made sense. the thing is, i do not -- we do not know who knew what when. that is where we are not having inside. >> a lot of these regulations were delayed until after the election.

>> at a moments time is expired. the gentleman may answer. >> i do not have the scope. it is not within my scope on when relayed the -- regulations get released or not. >> does anyone know? mr. park? you were chief technology. your organization own the question of whether or not the time these regulations were created. >> that is a mischaracterization of my organization's role. tech policyam are people. not health policy people. >> whether the trains run on time, whether things in the minting laws, is not what omb does? >> my role is to set policy to look at government budgets. >> solution to the ownby director in here and find out why after 3.5 years things were not done so this could be launched for the american people?

i guess we get a couple of omb directors. for attempting to get answers to your questions on healthcare.gov. my questions today will focus on the federal contract between cms healthcare.govup . if any other witnesses, pouner, you. tested nine -- -- including the eligibility and a roman system, according to the washington post, this contract is worth $93.7 million. how much money on this contract has already been awarded to cgi?

>> i do not have the exact figures. incentives and disincentives were in the contract to successfully fulfill their contract to rollout healthcare.gov? >> i think at the start of of the highest level of the federal acquisition regulation, there have been specific guidance about contracting and the contracting framework in which you would award i.t. contracts with specifications for something like a marketplace. >> they are still working on websites. >> yes. >> they been paid how much? >> i do not have the exact figures in front of me. >> are you pleased with the product you have received? the -- as todd mentioned, we are all -- >> we have a responsibility as

the oversight committee. edison protects taxpayer dollars. i am asking specific questions about the taxpayer dollars. perhaps you can spare some light on this. know what cgi, we know the government has paid i.t. funding over $600 million. that is we do know. >> tell me about the structure of the contract. if they perform, they should get paid. there is a performance element of it. there is a set of costs, and they are factored into performing the work. reviews theyn

could receive a performance incentive. i would have to get back on how exactly that works. do not run the contracts. >> would you share with this committee how they have gone into being paid for the work already. all they -- are they still working on healthcare.gov? as they messed it up, are they still on it? >> they are the contractor that does the development as well as ongoing operations and maintenance. they are so working on it. >> i would like to say that we can secure talk about contractor fault or government fall. here.ment is at fault there is fault on the government side. we went through this with the census bureau.

same situation. corrected it. >> we overspent, we came in and fixed it. it is the same situation. -- questions all across the board. >> i have been told this is lazy federal contracting. one of the failures? can anybody tell me? cms?e oversight of >> executive oversight. investment boards, at these agencies and departments, the questions are what meetings occurred, what risks were discussed, how timely were those meetings.

>> from a taxpayer perspective, these are millions of dollars. going to a failed product. i do not think they are happy. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. park, we have had a lot of bad news in this area. can you again tell us where we are in the progress? >> i'm just a small part of the team. the team is working hard to make progress. just some numbers, which are always helpful. as you mentioned previously, the response time, the time it takes for a page to render, eight seconds on average. it is now under a second. another measure is the system error rate.

percent a fewsix weeks ago. ,t was about one percent getting lower than that. our progress is still much more to do. a lot of work to do. but there is a system of attack in place. monitoring production stability, bug fixing. >> will the ranking member yield? chairman will yield to the gentleman or missouri. >> mr. park, what contractors are working on fixing the site? is it cgi? >> cgi is one. cms is in command of all the contracts. cgi is one. >> i think all of you, in case it isn't said again, we believe

that what you are doing today is important. i think what gao has said is there wasn't a single point of contact, an expert and charge the would be accountable and coordinate. that would asleep on their floor if that is what it took before october 1. that is the big reason we are here today. that is were gao is making the point to all of us that the next time there is one of these, we need to have somebody as close as we can come in the months and years preceding it. when i got the gentleman in south carolina. >> thank you. do you agree that there is a difference between an innocent misstatement of a perceived fact and a dilbert attempt to deceive? >> yes. >> so do i. when did you first realize you cannot keep your health insurance even if you did like it?

is a health policy matter. it is outside of my lane. >> you do not know when you realize you couldn't keep your health insurance even if you liked it? >> i don't recall. >> would you agree with me that the credibility or lack thereof in one area of life can impact credibility or lack thereof in another area of life question mark >> i suppose they could. >> in your written testimony, you wrote october 1, the launch date of the new website, i did know that. i just didn't know why. aam going to read to you quote from secretary sebelius. she said, ever paraphrase, she was hurried into producing a website because the law required it.

"in an ideal world, there would have been a lot more testing." i do not know what ideal world she is referring to. i'm going to stick with the one that we are in. what law was she referencing? website toire this launch october 1? sectariant speak for -- secretary stabile ease. >> i'm not asking you to. what loss was she referring to? that requires this website to launch in october 1? >> that is a health policy matter. >> it is a legal question. do you know if there is a law that requires this website to launch on october 1? or was an arbitrary date the a ministration settled on? >> i do not. >> would you find that to be

important whether or not we really had to go october 1 given the fact that we were not ready to go on october 1? would you find it relevant whether we had to launch a substandard product? respectfully, i'm a technology guy. >> don't short yourself. you're the smartest one in the room. >> that is not true, sir. >> trust me, i have been in this room for a while. [laughter] there is a law that requires that. what secretary sebelius said is false. there is no law that required a good time on october the first. i want to move to another component of her quote. some of us do not consider texting -- testing to be a luxury. additional testing would've been a luxury that was nice to have. how much more testing would you have done prior to launching? i'm not familiar with the

development testing regiment they had prior to october 1. that.ot pine about >> because you are the smartest one in the room, and good at what you do, where were you for the first 184 weeks? if you are being asked to fix 1, in aer october couple of weeks, where were you for the first 184 after the affordable care act pass? where they have you hidden? house ine at the white the office of science and technology policy, i'm a technology and innovation policy advisor. i have a broad per fully of responsibilities. >> you are obviously good enough that they brought you into fix what was broken. it has been called a train wreck. it has been called other things.

they brought you into fix it. why did they bring you went to start it? why did they bring you into build it? are you doing reclamation project? >> i'm part of an all hands on deck project. in the lead up to october 1, i was a part of that role. >> when will it be operational to your satisfaction? >> we have a goal we are pursuing with tremendous -- >> how many more weeks? i'm going to be asked when i go home. when will it be operational? when will it be as good as it can get? you can see the first 184 weeks didn't go swimmingly. is it going to be another 184 weeks? >> sir, the honest answer is that there is a team of incredibly dedicated public servants. >> i get that.

i'm looking for a number we can interpret. >> we are working to have the site function by the end of the month. smoothly, for the vast majority of americans. that is the goal. >> i my stability at mr. park was at hhs the time of passage for the roughly first two years. as expertise does come from out of the origins of obamacare. >> my question was if he is good enough to be brought into fix it after the locomotive has crashed off the mountainside, where was he for the first 184 weeks when it was being broken? why wait until it is crashed? if he is the savant, i'm convinced that he is, whereas he been? i know the obama girl is missing. he wasn't -- i think they found her, the lady from the website. where has he been?

time hasntleman in expired. when i got to the gym from texas. -- we now go to the gentleman from texas. >> i want to make a statement that they shouldn't have the a- team on this, and some of the people were there for the train wreck. 'swant to know that mr. park duties and not include overseeing this website. i do appreciate the fact that it appears as though in 60 days they're going to make right what wasn't ready on october 1. i think that is what the gentleman wants to be able to explain. we have until that november 30, this will work reasonably well. the six-day delay or less could have allowed this to be launch in a timely fashion. you.ank i do want to follow-up on that mr. park. you say there are hedge words in their. vast majority of americans.

mostly working. am i going to be will to go to the irs and say it didn't work for me, i could get my insurance, i'm good -- i'm not going to be fine? we have to tell us what it is going to be in good shape. can you give us a date? is the end of the month --listic question mark realistic? >> the team is working hard to meet that goal. >> as a former web developer, that is what i was telling clients when we were going to miss a deadline. we are working really hard to meet it. i am a former web developer. escape.to this i'm not one to really throw a contractor under the bus. i think it is too much money. a lot of issues there. one of the biggest struggles we had when we were developing websites was getting stuff from

the client, whether it was their copy for the text of the website, or whether it was the specifications. we could just cut and paste it out of e-mails into an html editor. when the actual specifications for how it goes change up to the last minute, it is difficult to do. how late were the substantial changes being ordered to the website? do you have a time frame? >> and not think they were any substantial changes ordered. it was more a standard practice of looking at how much time you have left, watching your , and theclosely priorities that were set by the business. i dont to follow-up that not think got completely answer. mr. jordan asked to if it was

thoroughly tested, and you said it was thoroughly tested. how did it do on the status? get a pass? >> i think, if i said thoroughly, i apologize. >> he said it was tested. >> it was tested under the prescribed security testing. i was saying that it was tested under the prescribed security controls. mr. langford was concerned about either members of your team having access to sensitive data. in those days you were sleeping on the floor, could you have walked into a server and walked out with people's information at mr. snowden question mark are the security risks there? >> no, i could've not. >> that is reassuring. me ask, with respect to

the private sector, is there a data breach or compromise, your credit card information or personal information gets release, there is a lot requiring notice. i just got a notice from a major software company my credit card had been compromised. but we find out if our information on healthcare.gov is, minus -- is compromised compromised? -- >> yes. there are several rules that apply. >> there are no special exemptions? we will hopefully find out. i am just concerned. we are at a time now when the trust in government as never been lower. we have the whole nsa snowden incident. we have the irs looking at people for political purposes. me, we have ae

massive website that is a target for hackers. a lot of people of information. by definition, it reaches out and touches the irs and social security computers. you open pathways to hackers. i am very concerned about the security issue. i want to make sure we are going to know if there are problems and they are not countries with under the rug for political purposes. >> we work closely with the security operations at the department level. asked, you you anonymoust the shopping feature, which i would love to see, do not think it is in place now, it was disabled before the election. we talk about political purposes or not. >> i jemma the german is saying before the october 1 launch. >> it was deleted. why was the deadline pushed back

because it didn't work? what was in the whole thing delayed? the part we all feel most safe about, without revealing personal information, you it.ted -- you delayed --anonymous shopper was in >> i do want to say, with my lack of trust in the federal government, i am loath to put my personal information in would love to shop anonymously like it did on the private exchanges in texas. i do not think you have to give up your personal information to give prices for something. you do not have to do it on airline websites. i yield back. gentleman -- is the

gentlelady from new mexico ready to go question mark >> yes. before i started, i wasn't here for the statement. colleagueecho what my said about gaps in coverage. coming from a state with more uninsured, two things have occurred. people who as of october 1 couldn't get on the website and are continuing to follow this issue closely, their individual or family plans expired or were expiring. they went off the exchange because they cannot get on, and purchased brand-new policies for another year. unlike the small businesses, they are in that now for a year. they are paying much higher rates than they would have could they have gotten on the individual exchange.

second, we know that another deadline for many individuals, we have the same issue. i am concerned about that. i appreciate it was brought up. i have told you that we are working through. we have been fighting for a long time in mexico to find a way to have access to affordable coverage. constituentsed, by need this website to work. we need to enroll and exchange. i know you've heard that we are all frustrated. while i wish that we had better solutions for them earlier on, my biggest concern is that we are reaching a critical point in the implementation timeline. in order to ensure that there is a gap in coverage between lanier's and individuals and they have to be rolled

by december 15. your goal with fiction website by the end of this november leaves very little room for error. i know it is not easy. while you are here, i want to make sure that for the record we are emphasizing that there is urgency here. i think that you have a deep appreciation for how transformative the technology can be. i would like to notice a time constraint you are aware of, and more broadly, if you feel the same urgency that i do about getting this operational for as many users as possible question mark >> -- possible? >> absolutely. >> leaving your office for an entire day, what would you be doing if you are not here today? >> i would be working with the team on the site. >> mr. park, i wish they were

working on healthcare.gov right now. part of this job is to ensure that you have all the tools and resources that you need to do your job. what else can we do to assist you to get this done? >> i'm a small part of a broad team. hard.e worked incredibly responsivet say, be to their requests for assistance, that would be terrific. >> we are kennedy more clarity about that. i agree with this committee reformingtalk about i.t. procurement. i didn't know if today's the day to deal with those practices given that states do it poorly, and we've spent millions on i.t. projects that haven't gone well anywhere in the public sector.

we have to figure out a better way to do that. i hope that committee will continue to lead that effort in a bipartisan way. i want to go back to the situation that we are in. i want to be result oriented. i want to solve these problems, and i feel like we should not be pulling a surgeon from the operating room today. thank you, mr. park. i yield back. >> one more statement that is ok? >> i just wanted to not lose the fear that you started, which is i.t. procurement. it is an important issue. this committee has done terrific work on it. we need to do more. i would love to see a high energy effort attacking this issue from multiple dimensions. i know less about the people on this committee. -- therenot a single

are decades of practices that have led to where we are now. we can actually take this out faster,ver better, higher return results. >> i ask unanimous consent. yield to the ranking member question mark >> i want to get to the bottom line here. peoplell happen is that who are sitting here, i agree with the gentlelady. when you go back to what happened with langford, he was trying to get on the page, and he can get there. can you talk about that? that israel. that is real. there are people watching us now

were trying to get on the page. can you tell us what you're doing, and how that affects things like that? they have reporters now that sit tell us how that relates to what you are doing sarcocystis can have some kind of assurances that things are going to get better. >> absolute. they defer the question. we have limited time. they have a dramatic improvements in the ability to, as a consumer, create an account and get onto the site. that has been the function of improving the ability of that part of the site to handle volume. also am a fixing bugs. many more people are actually able to get through now. that being said, it is not perfect. i would like to follow-up with the congressman to actually

understand his use case and i'll that back. there are folks who got caught in the middle of that cycle, and are stuck there. they are reaching out to us. think hasssue that i been a very large part of the work we have to do. i want to follow the congress but understand the specific use case he is in so we can figure that out. >> thank you. now, from estimate of the education and known iq, it could rival u.s. the smartest guy in the room. a i'm from the trade school mile down the river from your art school. >> you better share that with the rest of the world. >> i went to m.i.t., you went to harvard. some numbers.hare

i want to talk about the final security control assessment that was prepared. it says they were unable to adequately test the confidentiality and integrity of the hris. integrity of the hris. complete end-to-end testing of the application never occurred. was the final security control assessment. we are throwing around a lot of three letter acronyms. but i have got a document that cya all over it. you wrote a letter and this the toal authority to operate

maryland tavern, which she signed off on. in this letter, you stated, due issues, iteadiness was only partially completed. this constitutes a risk that must be excepted and medicated to support the day one operations. in this sentence here, and this was written september 27, or certainly signed off on september 27, were you trying to tell your boss there is a risk, and i will not accept it, that you must accept the risk, that we can either delay the date or except the security risk echo >> i was outlining a generalized risk acceptance with a significant rollout of a marketplace system. quest that wrist existed because there had never been an end to end security test on this. basicallyue? that is what the letter states. >> in previous testimony, i've also sent end-to-end is a highly subjective term.

>> if it is subjective, how we you get it done in 60 days to 90 days. quest it depends on the scope of what you are trying to put into production. quest the scope is our data safe, the personal affirmation the americans enter into the system safe yet up in the same letter, a short letter signed september 27, you suggested we conduct a full security control assessment. i will let you define that. in a stable the -- environment, which implies you do not have securitywhere all controls can be tested within 60 days to 90 days of going live october 1. here's what troubles me about the letter. you are basically saying, we can go live, but there will be security risks, but left tested on personal information for 60 days to 90 days. quest that is not what i said and that is not what the memo alludes to. when we do security testing, we do not do it in terms of using

live people's data. we do the testing in a pre- implementation environment. >> i would contend beyond implementation, we are testing this in the real market ended this failing. of this ise format not typical. is that true? quest it is true. quest so you have never seen that format before. is it a problem you were not given the final security control assessment prior to offering the not think that is necessarily a problem. my staff were copied on it. quest but you did not get to see it. you said, i did not get a copy. those were your words. quest) i was with the information systems security officer when these tests were being conducted. determined there was no high finding. quest the person responsible for the author isn't that -- i think you should have been at your securitying the final

control assessment. >> i was there in person. quest i glad -- i'm glad to see you covered yourself by putting this sentence in your. quest that was not to cover myself. that was a decision -- >> are any among you today willing to bet your job that thousands of people's personal data will not be released because of implementation of this website? quest that is a yes or no question. >> would you attest to that? they are trying to ask us to predict something that security vulnerabilities are, as some folks mentioned before, it happens every day. that is why we do security testing. >> obviously, from the documents here, you are not comfortable to this and you are trying to transmit to your boss, let me read your words, this constitutes a risk that must be excepted and medicated. in other words, to launch this by october 1, you were telling your boss, she will have to accept some risks that are not

normal for this. get into numbers briefly. >> the german's time has expired. 17,000 users a minute, or an hour, can subscribe. we have mr. langford, waiting over an hour and a half. five orders of magnitude difference between the two sommers. which is closer to the truth? quest the german may answer. how many people and our are able to enroll in health care. >> the gentleman previously said 70,000. is that correct? >> 17,000 registration per hour is the number we have. >> i imagine you have a war room somewhere where you are directing these operations and you have some big number, the only number that matters, how many are enrolling right now per hour? can you tell us? >> actually -- >> just in number. come on. we both love numbers. quest let the gentleman answer. your time has expired.

it is a harvard m.i.t. problem, i think. you can talk more afterwards. >> in terms of enrollment numbers, they will be released shortly. >> i think the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania. quest thank you. the affordable care act was passed into law in 2010. it seeks to increase competition in the marketplace, to help ring down health care costs. it ends the practice of denying coverage to those with pre- existing conditions, bands annual and lifetime limits on health care, and also enables parents to teach their children their 26 care until years old and makes small businesses eligible for tax credits to ease the burden of employee coverage. the law also works to strengthen medicare and will make prescription coverage for seniors more affordable. these tax credits are desperately needed in my district, where nearly 9.4% of my constituents live below the

poverty line. 10.5%, do not have health insurance in my district, including 6500 children. they will be able to utilize subsidies offered under the finally, toare act, get health care. i, also, want to get to the bottom of what is going on with his website, healthcare.gov. forpport oversight hearings that purpose. however, this hearing, like so many previous hearings, is clearly an extension of the politically motivated repeal or delay agenda some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been pushing since this law was first passed in 2010. it seems to me if the chairman really were so worried about getting this website fixed, so that people could actually access affordable health care, he would not have subpoenaed mr. park to come in and testify

today. mr. park agreed to testify before this committee just 2.5 weeks later, but the chairman refused that offer and subpoenaed him anyway. oh chairman subpoena combined with the constant leaking of partial transcripts and taking witness quotes out of contest, it seems like it is part of a predetermined political strategy rather than a constructive effort to conduct responsible oversight as this committee is supposed to do. although the chairman claimed otherwise in his opening statement here today, the house republican conference chair's politicizing this issue and here is the proof. toy have issued a playbook republican members. they call it that, a playbook, right on the cover. it does not say how to fix problems with the website or improve the process. or work to ensure americans with health care. exploit anyhow to challenges or glitches for their own political gain. i'm not just saying -- i am not

saying all republicans are doing that. it certainly seems to me in this chairman of this committee is. quest with a gentleman like to place that on the record? i have not seen it. quest yes. quest so ordered. quest it is my hope we can have oversight without this kind of gamesmanship and partisan politics, as this committee has been able to do in the past. i would like to get to the bottom of what is going on with the website. i want my constituents to be able to sign up for quality, affordable health care. mr. shall, on november 7, chairman issa issued a press acaase with the headline, testing bulletin, healthcare.gov could only handle 1100 users the day before launch. he then accused jay carney and mr. park of making false statements by suggesting the

estimated capacity at about 60,000, that is what the , jayman said, and i quote carney is being picked desk hate to say things that are not so but in this case, the people who knew the facts and had to know the facts, and the facts were from documents we received from lead contractors that slow down to a non-acceptable level at 1100 users. in fact, todd was telling us at 60,000 was the target and at 250,000, they just could not handle it. thate basis for allegation, the chairman quoted from a testing document he released, which says this. ran performance testing , working with cgi to bee the ffm environment to able to handle a maximum load. reachtly, we are able to

1100 users before response time gets too high. mr. chow, it is my understanding wasimp one the environment only a sample testing environment, and not a test of the full production capacity of the entire website. am i correct? >> the time has expired. the gentleman may answer. quest you are correct. limitation one the environment is about 10% the size of the full production environment. >> thank you. yield back. >> i thank you. we now go to the gentleman. would you yield for just 10 seconds for a comment? >> certainly. >> i could never understand how this thing could handle 60,000 simultaneous users but only do six in a day. maybe unlike some of the smart people here, i just cannot get it that six in a day does not seem like 60,000 simultaneous users. i think the general derailment. quest thank you. thank each one of you for coming to testify and mr. park, you are

this,d enough to remember but i remember the $6 million man. you are now the $600 million man because you are coming in to fix all of this. we are hopeful based on the people i represent, that your successful by november 30. we want to ask you, though, how do we define success? are all, thatints it will be fixed for the vast majority of americans as we don't want. what is success? is it a 98 are sent without weight time? so on we define success september 1, we will know whether you were worth 600 million or not. >> thank you for your comments and your question. first of all, i am just a small part of the team working to fix this. >> what is success? the sites, personal,

will most definitely not be perfect. --even cites >> i know, but how do you, when the president asks you, were you successful, how do you define success? >> first of all, on a system that is stable, so it is up and running consistently, as opposed to -- >> what percentage of the time? 98%? >> one proxy we are using, actually, is for performance in general, response time and error rate. and if the system actually has issues and goes down, these things can then exacerbate. >> i would run out of time. what i will ask you to do is for the record, get to the committee what we could looks too so we could assimilate it to all of america on what success is so on

september 1, we will all know. thank you. mr. chow, much of your testimony, i have read some of it and it seems to be a little different. i also know you had several meetings, ongoing meetings, with white house staff over this process. is that correct? directorspanied other such as gary cohen. >>, the times were you at the white house? >> over the course of three years, less than two dozen times. quest the law suggests 29 times. is that correct? ballpark e quest that might not be accurate. some meetings were canceled. >> who conducted the meetings? jean? >> there were meetings conducted by her. steve --et with

>> in those meetings? so you were all part of those meetings? >> steve chaired -- >> i am asking about the white house meeting. there were 29 white house meetings of which you had this group. who were the people in the room? were you in their? >> i am not trying to be difficult, but there were different parts of it. a white house conference center. , shee meetings with jean was leading. the 29 meetings. >> that was probably less than a handful. >> ok. my question is, i am a little confused how the president would be surprised this was such a debacle on october 1 if you were all meeting regularly with the white house. why would they be surprised on october 1 that it did not roll out the way everybody thought it should? the subject matter, at least with my attendance being there, was to discuss things such as the status of the hub

development. >> did anybody express concern there was a problem? that october 1, there would be a problem? >> no. quest there was no one in that room. we had all the brightest minds in the world in this room and no one anticipated a problem october 1? >> they were highly specific issues, such as working on 6103 requirements with irs, the privacy act implementation, they were very operationally specific. quest you are all not meeting on how the website would work, none of you. >> not meetings. my meetings were more operationally focused about implementation. >> all right. it is plausible the president would be surprised this was not going to work. based on those meetings. >> i would not know that. >> ok. who would have been in the best position to be able to advise the president that we were going to have this on mitigated mass? anybody in that room?

who should we bring back to help americans understand why this is such a fiasco? is amazing how we can find you cannot answer a simple question for the american people. >> i do not think it is for me to decide. >> i asked the question for you to answer. quest my answer is, it is not really for me to decide. quest your time is expired. suspect,y six that -- as often is set in politics, -- success has plenty of relatives, but failure is an orphan. you will find an orphan here, if i have ever heard or seen one. patientth that, the

gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> thank you. i want to thank the members of the panel for coming forward and your willingness to help the community with its work. i want to say at the outset my experience in massachusetts, with the massachusetts health care, so-called romney care, that was a precursor in many ways, i am speaking of the affordable care act, also ruled out very slowly. being ony experience the ground in massachusetts when that plan went forward. in wrapping up. it did not have the urgency of this program. it was sort of planned that way. i also remember the medicare part he asked, which was a republican initiative, also rolled out extremely slowly. i know a lot of my seniors, i had to do 16 town halls around downstrict to try to tear

the backlash because of the slowness of how that was ramped up. not out ofence is line with those other two programs. so, i just wanted to make that note. i have had a chance to go out and talk to some of the outreach workers. a lot of the outreach on the affordable care act in my district is being conducted through the local community health centers. i have basically an urban district. the health care -- the health center employees are going out and signing people up. one of the concerns they have raised is that the affordable and act is so focused facilitated by an e-mail address , people have to have an e-mail address in order to interact with this whole thing. if you look at the demographic of the 31 million people who we are trying to get health care

to, that were not receiving health care before, the poor, the elderly, that is a high correlation between folks who did not get health care before, and do not have an e-mail, and so, the outreach workers, when i said, what is your biggest problem, they said, when we are working with the elderly, and we are working with low income families, the poor, they do not have an e-mail address and the basically, ithis requires an e-mail address. to do others -- otherwise, to scratch that asked, we will somehow have to close that gap. because a lot of these folks do not have e-mail addresses and yet they are the very people we are trying to get health care to. thought been given to, look, this is supposed to be the easy part. getting people up on the grid. i am not talking about making , just care affordable

getting off on the grid, this was supposed to be the easy art. i and concerned about where we are today and where we need to anyto in order to meet definition of success. what are we doing about those people who do not have an e-mail address because they are poor and elderly and not on the grid? how are we going at them? has anybody got an idea? >> we operate call centers. we have 12 in which people can work with a live person online to fill out the application and to go through their determination process and select the plan and get enrolled. >> the workers i talked to said the application is 31 or 34 pages. go through a 34 application for on the phone? >> what happens, the call-center experiences, it is not you are

necessarily filling out a paper application, you can start that butand submit it that way, you can also start with a call center representative. sure -- i am not not so sure that is working. that might be part of the problem. i have a district where we have a lot of and folks that are struggling. we have got to figure that one out. >> we can certainly confirm that process or procedure. quest that would help. the other situation is this. at the same time we are trying to get this up, and get people have employers making decisions, not to continue health care plans for their employees. they are unplugging and sending people to the exchanges. i have got employers out there, a lot of them in the construction industry, that are saying, i know i used to provide health care for you, but now, i want you to go to the exchanges. they are unplugging.

health care provide and now these employees in the construction industry are trying to plug in and they are having these problems. way wondering, is there any to sort of make sure the unplugging does not occur until areave a platform that we confident people can plug into? i think there will be a gap here and it concerns me greatly that we have so many people in the construction industry -- and i have met with union employers, about 50, and about 35 nonunion, or open shop, employers, both having the same problem. i think there is a mismatch in what is going on here were the employers are disengaging and to the and leads exchanges, and when they try to go to the exchanges, they are having problems signing up.

i'm wondering if there is some corrective action we could take in delaying the process for employers to disengage, or, just giving people time to look into this system that is not ready for prime time. time ise german's expired. if the gentleman may yield briefly. >> i was hoping you would suggest the question of, can we do this by mail. [laughter] quest that is an inside joke. >> in all seriousness, it the fact that if somebody does not have e-mail capability, why could they not make a call to a call center, fill out the paperwork, return it in a self- addressed stamped envelope, so that in fact the post office could ensure the elderly people not comfortable with e-mail and so on do it here at qwest just my thoughts and i will not take longer time than i need to, but

i know generally we are trying to get away from a paper process. as a last resort, it might be necessary, but it is not the ideal. >> certainly not. >> can i just answer that? it is not -- we're not considering that as a last resort because it is a little inefficient, but we make accommodation, if you want to start the process, on paper, you can, and then mail it into our eligibility support worker contract, which will then take you through the rest of the process. >> thank you. >> with that, we go to the german from michigan. >> i will yield my time to my friend, the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. >> recognized. without objection, the german from ohio will be able to control the time. >> i think the chairman for yielding. meadows asked the pertinent question. there were a series of meetings held at the white house weekly presided overwere

by folks in the white house. mr. meadows asked who are the people who can answer the questions. the questions like, why did you not know the security assessment was not completely done? who can answer the questions about why you decided to go ahead and launch this october 1? we know who the person is because according to the washington post story, november 2, and memo that they got from david cutler, spells it out. mr. cutler said, we need to put someone from the private sector in charge, someone who has the experience and expertise, and the president said no, he only made up his mind, nancy is that person. that is the person we need. , mr.utler also points out meadows has referenced this as well. according to the memo, the overall head of imitation was jean lambro. those are the cutest people we

need. you -- would you agree they need to come here and tell us what took place and why it was done the way it was done? this is the lady, the president said, that is who i want in charge, even though larry summers, david cutler, said put someone else in charge. the president said he wants nancy in charge. you not think he should come in front of this committee? thatcannot really speak to . >> we will probably have to do the same thing for her that we did to you -- for you. yesterday, last week, the chairman and i sent a letter to the white house -- the white house asking that question. the person handpicked by the president, would she come in front of this committee and testify about this disaster the rollout has been, and will miss lambro, as well, and the response we got back yesterday from the white house was, thank you for the weight -- for inviting us, but we're are not coming. it looks like we will have to do

the same thing to get the two people to come here. you testified you had been there between 10 times and 29 times for these meetings. mr. park, according to the white house log, you have been to nine of these where jean ran the meeting. is that correct? nine times you went to the white the weeklyshe ran meetings? >> i cannot verify that. >> it is what the visitors log says. were you at meetings with nancy and jean at the white house? >> from time to time, yes. about the meetings were the rollout of the affordable care act and the website? >> as i recall, there were different kinds of meetings, and i attended -- were they about obamacare? were about the affordable care act. >> what is your official title? head of information technology for the entire united states. i assume it was about technology? >> first of all, i

am in technology and in affirmation policy adviser. i'm not the head of i.t., just to clarify. i cannot actually recall for the meetings, what particular topics were discussed off the top of my head, unless there were norse that -- more specificity. had,y of the meetings you was the rollout of obamacare discussed, and concerns about this thing not being ready october 1? without more specificity -- >> who ran the meetings the 10 or 29 times you are at the white house? who was in charge? were any of those meetings run by miss lambro? >> i do not think it was 29 times. >> you testified between 10 and 25. whatever those numbers, or any of those run by jean lambro or nancye >> one was run by

and just a couple i tended was with jean. rolementioned before, my was to provide a five-minute status on hub development. >> i am not worried so much about your role. i just want to establish the fact you are at the white house between 10 and 29 times. mr. park was there nine times. how many times were you in these weekly meetings at the white house? >> i do not recall. i did not attend many weekly meetings. i have been in the company of those two people. >> regarding the affordable care act? >> maybe once or twice. >> ok. my time is expired. those are the individuals that need to come in front of this committee and we cannot accept the fact we got it will letter from the white house that says, thank you but we are not coming. >> i would note for all members there is a vote on the floor and

we will go until the very last minute. if either ofask is you have pacific questions for mr. park. >> i do not. park, the cubs we would otherwise keep you for longer than i think is necessary, want to thank you for being here. you get to stay. the vote. mr. park, you have been a very cooperative witness and i appreciate you being here. i believe you were being here as a person we will look to to get this right by november 30. was critical. i appreciate you being here. without objection, you are dismissed. >> just one more request. will someone send me contact info? >> we will have that information given to you. i will do -- one other thing quickly. if, when you go back, since you are a federal employee, go to the website. in ayou will find there

pdf form, is a spreadsheet. it challis seems to think was not important to give people a shopping list. i will tell you, if you are a or non-employee, postal postal, you could go to that website and look at every single how and it will tell you much the annual rate is, the biweekly rate, how much of government pays for you, and how much you will pay by plan. that does not let you endlessly look at details of the plan, but spread over plans not just 50 states, but the district of columbia and puerto rico, we provide this to the federal work force. i might suggest if you cannot get some form of legitimate open quickly, thatup currently, telling people what their rate is, if they are 27 or 50, is disingenuous because it

distorts what the real rates are and that a splash page or a pdf, so people can look at all the plans, and, by age, but depending on what their ages, they would know what the rate is , it could be done in a matter of hours by a 10th grader. until thissuffice program -- >> can i make a comment click? in my oral remarks, i mentioned we are working on a premium estimates and tool that will give you more details than just overery course under 49 50, so that you can browse plans. we are working on them. >> understand, you're under 50, 27. your over 50 is 50. it is aged based. if you were picking it, you should've picked 64 and 29 and you would have gotten much higher rates. the truth is a simple -- forget about

microsoft. super cal could have given you that spreadsheet before many of my staff were born. made available very quickly. i might suggest the american people deserve to know a plan based on their ages x amount and a free look would be very helpful. i commend you to look at what we do for ourselves as federal employees. with that, i will go to the gentleman from michigan. i believe we have time. >> thank you very much. gentlemen, are you familiar with brooks law? anybody? the first thing you learn in software development. you need to divert developers to train new developers. you add to the project. rollout me november 30 is another hope and daydream. -- read thisiar information technology, critical factors, major acquisitions,

2011? >> i think i have peru's debt. >> good. -- youare familiar cruised it. you did not study it. apparently you did not. working on the marketplace program. i do not have a whole lot of time to read a lot of other materials. familiarout, are you with this fix you are putting in for obamacare? you are diverting people who understand the software, to train people to come in and fix the problem? >> yes, i think that is what is happening now. >> ok. three.list program officials. three of the nine best practices , which you did not implement. program officials are actively engaged with stakeholders. the obama rollout apparently

last senior oversight for most, , and hhs federal cto cio. take from this >> clearly, those were best practices. what we did, that was a report we did where we always report on failures. we went to 10 agencies and asked them for a success story. there are seven successful acquisitions in there and we asked why they are successful. none of that is a surprise. it is defining your projects right up front and putting the right people in charge. good communications with contractors and managing best practices throughout the lifecycle. it is something everyone at the table knows needs to be done on successful acquisitions. where weman, i think look at the acquisition process on the whole bit, that is fine and will be helpful. a lot of this just gets down to

solid governance and good management and the right attention on these projects. that is what the practices really highlight. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i would like to yield the rest of my time to mr. meadows. thank you. >> recognize. >> i think the gentleman from michigan and i have a question. i have been running the numbers. my understanding is we are creating the site to create a is available for 17,000 users per hour. >> the way itt? was described is that the first part of the process is you have to register for an account. runningent capacity is at 17,000 registrations per hour. >> what are we building the system to be able to handle in terms of capacity? 17,000 or higher than that? >> is approximately 48-58,000 users in the system. by that, i mean, you could be on

the learned side, just looking at static webpages, to actually, actively, filling out an application. >> what is the smallest and of the conduit? what truly is it? 17,000? 25,000? or 43,000? is our smallest ability in terms of volume to handle in terms of capacity? are about,w, there on average, somewhere between 22 to 25,000. >> that is what we are building capacity, 25 thousand? >> brower, sitting right up on that. >> that is what we are building to? >> actually a little exceeding that. right -- the example, the part -- we are going to apply some torovement that will go 30,000 registrations. >> let me tell you the reason why i asked. i've done the numbers. if you take the number of uninsured americans out there,

and if they got on the system today, 24 hours a day, which we know does not happen, it would be 43,000 people an hour. we are building a system that will not even take care of the uninsured people we have right now. be are we going to successful? >> i would like to look at your calculations. >> 50 million people, you could do it over the next 48 days. >> i do not think the estimates were -- >> i know the estimates were not there, but if you do the math, i yield back. >> he will have to look at his figures, that the burn rate necessary to get done was not understood from day one. the surge requirement at 4:30 in the afternoon or 5:30 in the afternoon, pacific time, was not in fact what you're looking at. i know mr. van rogal would understand you need two or three or four times the highest capacity to deal with when people are actually going to log on and try to do it.

ms. loomis is recognized. >> thank you. it definesou said high-risk. as a vulnerability that could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect on organizational operations or assets. i want to focus on the part about the severe or catastrophic adverse effect on individuals. is it true there were two high ,isks that continue to be found related to the marketplace information systems, but you were not told about them at the time? >> i think you are referring to the september 3 authorization to operate? >> i am. >> those two findings were, i think earlier, in the hearing today, we clarified that was dealing with two components of the marketplace systems that deal with plans submitting dental and health situate --

information, and did not involve any personally identifiable information. >> the memo i have does not -- i do not have the information you just testify to because of the redaction's in the memo. maybe that is correct and maybe it is not. are you are -- are you testifying that is absolutely what it is about? >> yes. i saw an unredacted version handled -- handed by committee staffers to me last week. if it has been redacted, it has been redacted by someone else. >> did one of the risks outlined in the memo pertained to the protection of financial or privacy data? it right inhave front of me. i think there was an appendix section. i do not recall seeing that. >> you do not know whether financial or privacy data were outlined as a risk in this memo? class i do not believe so our plant dealt with management or our qualified

module,lan submission which are data that is submitted by issuers and dental providers. >> is it true the internal memo, this memo, outlined one of these risks as the threat and risk attentional are limitless? referringhink it is ,o a very specific type of risk when you allow an upload of a file that has an internal macro that runs but it is not about people. this is not personally identifiable information. >> it iss it about? about plans submitting their network at -- adequacy. it is basically worksheets that contain information about the benefit data each issuers submits. >> i will switch gears. did you brief white house officials prior to october 1 about the status of the website?

>> no, not directly about the website. >> who did? >> i do not know. >> mr. bateman, did you? >> i did not. >> did you? >> not only do i not know if that happened, i do not know. i did not. lex when mr. jordan asked you some questions, one of the things he asked you was about your involvement in meetings. he was specifically referencing -- i looking for the name. i mean just ask you this, or any of the meetings you attend at the white house? it depends on how you describe the white house. the white house includes treasury, the old executive office building and the new executive office building. i did not know you're it -- if you were talking about physical or organizational.

i work in an agency that is part of the executive office of the president. every meeting i have is considered part of that organization. >> was ms. lambro present? >> as i mentioned in my answer to mr. jordan, yes. >> what were those meetings about? >> the particular meetings were dealing with -- they were asking my private sector advice on demand generation and marketing to young people, how to use social media to reach out to uninsured americans. class who was briefing the white house about the status of the website? no one? briefed the white house about the status of the website before october 1? mr. chow? >> not me, personally. isilyn tavener certainly representing the agency. so you might want to ask her. do not know whether the

status of the federal exchange in the data hub were ever a focus? housetings between white and hhs personnel before october 1? >> i think what i said earlier, in the meetings are pretended cap -- attended, i provided status briefings on the progress of certain i.t. builds, like a data services. >> and, your reports on the status of the bills set off alarm bells with them? >> no. the data services hub was actually performing well and on -- itnd it received operated in august. >> what happened between august and october 1? attend any white house meetings. >> what happened with the reforms of the hub? >> the hub is doing fine. it is doing what is -- it is intended to do. >> mr. chairman, i yield back.

>> thank you. i will be brief. i call theor what front door, is what did not perform well. is that not true? >> correct. >> since the system was designed that you had to go through the front door to get anything out, -- else, it does not really matter if you had 60,600. if we can presume the number that existed just prior to launch of 1100 in that so-called minimize test, or, as you said, it was only 1/10 of the amount, it really was not true. the truth is when people got timeouts as they tried to register and try to go to the idea, the marketplace hub, one, that you force them through by in september determining they could not look at ace glass page to get price idea if nothing else was available. that front there be -- front

door being blocked is essential the reason american people have wasted, for the most part, a month, trying to get register. is that not true? >> it is not true. >> yeah, well it is. mr. bateman, where were you since you and mr. van rogal are critically part of this process, wase were you when mr. park brought in afterwards. where were you in the months and years leading up to this? why is it you were not aware that on day one, this product was going to fail to launch in any legitimate, acceptable way. my openingicated in testimony, hhs is a federated agency. -- >> not your job. you came out of the private sector. gates and steve ballmer and a lot of other people at microsoft would have had somebody's neck hung, maybe not literally and maybe not fired them, but they would want to know, demand to know, steve

jobs, when he was alive over at apple, they would have said, who the blank is responsible for this failure. can you tell me today whose job it was to make sure we did not have this dreadful failure to launch that did not call the one person that should have known and did not do their job? one person. who was that person? >> i was not close to the actual development. i am not in a position to make that call. >> i had you and mr. bateman and mr. chow who leave the gao out of it because we will probably ask them help us find out. but none of you today can tell us who failed to do their job and as a result, the american people lost a month of any effective, real ability to sign up. this website was dead at launch for all practical purposes and i am sorry, but you have -- you can give me all the numbers you want. six on the first day and 240 on the second day, when millions of americans were trying to make this work.

we may disagree on obamacare, -- we do not disagree a disagree that that was unacceptable. understand,fail to you and mr. bateman, and all of you in the administration who are allowed to go to those meetings, mr. palmer would tell you best practices should be a lot more like it is that toyota company. or honda. line, oneduction person who sees a bad car coming down, is allowed to stop the production line. in this case, a really defective, something that would make -- launched on october 1, and nobody said here today or for that matter since i have been listening to the various hearings, nobody said, i should have pulled the stop button. refuse to answer to give a great.

mr. bateman, you refuse to answer. i will give it a grade. this was an effort. -- f. a a pass or fail, this is fail. everyone of you should have been close enough to know there was something wrong, to ask somebody in one of the many meanings, are we sure this would work? and at least get an assurance from somebody that it would. i want to thank you for being here today, because although many people have talked about what we need to do in legislation, you are the only person here who represents an organization that has said, there is a right way to do it, we have looked at agencies of the federal government who have you, weright, and, like normally look at the agencies that fail. we look at the program that failed. and lost us a billion dollars. we are looking at a failure that has cost the american people.

forward to all of you being part of the process of best practices in your job going forward. with all of you realizing without legislative change, we will be back here again, with everybody saying, i did not fail to do my job, even when a product failed to launch. with that, you are dismissed and we will set up the next anil before the vote. >> the obama administration announced wednesday in the first month assignment has been available, more than 100,000 people have enrolled for health insurance through state and federal marketplace. completed6,000 have applications. statistics released by the department of health and human services also showed that 1.5 million people applied for insurance. more than one million being eligible for coverage. kathleen sebelius spoke with reporters in a conference call. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] joinings, everyone, for us this afternoon. thanks for your patience. today, we will be joined by secretary sibelius, as well as julie, the director of communications. michael, which the hh -- with the hhs reform. with theancy, assistant secretary for planning and evaluation office here. we will begin with some remarks from the secretary, as well as julie. and then the secretary will be available to answer a few questions after her schedule requires her to depart, o we will have these additional available to answer more questions. without further ado, secretary, let's get started. >> thanks. i want to start by thanking mike , julie, and nancy, who will hear from in a minute and we will be happy to hear more of your questions. today, we are releasing a report

with enrollment data for october 1 through november 2. the numbers run through tell two very clear stories. ourt, in every part of country, americans are very interested in the affordable health coverage being offered through the marketplace and through medicaid. even with the issues we have had, the marketplace is working, and people are enrolling, over the phone, on paper, in person, and online. at both healthcare.gov and websites. time, 106,000st americans have enrolled in qualified health plans through the marketplace. people have learned they may be eligible for medicaid. what is more, upwards of 975,000 customers have made it through the process of applying and getting intelligibility determination and are currently still shopping for a plan. again, the marketplace is working. people aren't rolling. rarely a dayyou

goes by when i do not meet someone who has gone 2, 3, 4 years, or in some cases, their entire lives, without insurance. they tell me how i should they are to get covered. maybe they're living paycheck to paycheck or have been locked out of the market because of a pre- existing health condition. reflectedir interests in the number of people seeking information and shopping for plants. healthcare.gov and state sites have received 226.8 million unique visitors. both national and state call centers have received more than 3.1 million calls. we can reasonably expect the numbers will grow substantially over the next five months, as they did in massachusetts, which enrolls only .3%, or 123 people in its first month. thatow from experience people tend to research and consider their options, talk things over with their families, before making a purchase.

this data represent only one month into a sustained six-month enrollment and outreach effort. we are confident if more people throughout the country learn about their options, more people meetsind a plan that needs and their budgets and more will enroll in their coverage. as we continue the outreach effort, and as we make an tenuous improvements, we have every reason to suspect more people will enroll. time, more than 1.5 million americans applied for coverage, submitting more than 846,000 applications for themselves and members of their families. those who applied for coverage through federal and state marketplaces, proximally 1.4 8 million people, have received an eligibility determination. in other words, a learned whether they are eligible for the marketplace and whether they qualify for lower costs, or whether they are eligible for medicaid.

almost one third of these consumers have already signed up for a plan, or they are eligible or -- eligible. as more people shop and talk things over with their families, we expect these numbers to rise. at the end of the day, the promise of quality and affordable coverage is increasingly becoming a reality for more and more americans. recently, with a woman in austin, texas, cap recently started a new job. while her employer did not offer health insurance, they offered to subsidize insurance purchased on the individual market. unfortunately, the plan ran between 500 and $700. even with help from her small employer, it was more than she could afford. once the marketplace opened, she was able to enroll in coverage from only $140 a month. receivingelp she is from her employer, her monthly out-of-pocket premium will only be about $70 a month. we are determined to create more

success stories and we are committed to pushing forward to do just that. i will turn the call over to julie now. >> thank you. thank you all for joining us this afternoon. as secretary sibelius just noted, we fully expect the enrollment numbers to grow over time. not only as we continue to make fixes to healthcare.gov, but also as we continue our aggressive outreach and education efforts. we are working 24/7 to make improvements to healthcare.gov. we are making progress so that by the end of the month, the site will be working smoothly for the vast majority of users. this means by the end of november, users will be able to move faster through the system, see fewer error messages, experience less timeouts, and be able to complete their application and enrollment in one sitting, if they choose to. as of today, the site's error rate is down to less than one

percent. project, this is a dynamic online environment and a process that will be ongoing. we will continually be making featuresnts and adding and delivering new content. can best respond to ongoing consumer demand over time. with f is well underway to ensure healthcare.gov functions more smoothly for users, we are continuing and intensifying our out reach enrollment efforts. for example can best respond to ongoing consumer demand over , more than 18,000 people nationwide have been trained to help consumers learn about and apply for coverage in person. theave partnered with institute of museum and library services so that 17,000 public libraries across the country have information about health care operate -- options, and provide their locations as rome it -- destinations. we have 900 organizations in all 50 states signed on to be

champions for coverage, committed to sharing education materials and supporting out .ich -- outreach through october 1 alone, we have posted more than 1000 educational vents around the country to help spread the word about new affordable health care options, working with churches, community organizations, community colleges, and others. we know from the numbers there is a great demand for quality affordable health coverage. as we work to ensure consumers can access the coverage to healthcare.gov, in person, or by calling a call center, our outreach efforts are designed to help make sure consumers have the information they need to enroll in the coverage they want. with that, the secretary and the team here would be happy to take your questions. >> thank you. at this time, we will begin the question and answer session. our first question is from this nagging fox. >> thanks so much.

it is a bit controversial to include in the numbers people who have signed up but not completed payment. >> maggie, i think numbers are consistent with enrollment numbers, that massachusetts reported, and that we feel are the most accurate. payment is not due until december the 15th. one of our concerns is that would give you the most reliable information and we are trying to make sure we cross-reference this with our insurance partners, but we know that some people may enroll in a plan temporarily and then decide to switch plans when they find out more information, so are going to give you the best numbers we can, but it is not broken down by numbers. by the 15th of december we will be able to begin to tell you how many people actually have eight for the first month of coverage.